Post by Matt D. on Dec 9, 2013 0:52:52 GMT -5
Two misconceptions about the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
1. Now, if you look at that most people instantly think of the armed forces. I don't see how you could though. The first comma is a separation between two clauses, so that kind of kills that whole theory.
2. Some say it only applies to muskets and the sort, because it was written in the 1790's. They always say since they could not foresee what arms we have now, they could not have made a decision on what arms could be infringed upon. Not so. Remember who had been using a few types of highly advanced (For that time) musket during the war lest than two decades earlier. So, they could have easily said that we may only use wheel lock or match lock rifles.
Or maybe that we couldn't have a mortar, or field guns. Or maybe another almost obsolete weapon system, much like single shots or lever actions are now. But they didn't. And that, is why we must may never be truly safe. Some refuse to use there minds (that God gave them for this sort of thing!) to figure out the truth.
Between those people and the masses of people who just go with the flow and believe that when Barrack Hussein Obama tells them it was a fully automatic AR 15 used at Newtown, they believe him. When those of us who are voices of reason tell them he didn't even use his AR 15, (According to the police report) and that he used two handguns, they just have a blank stare.
Most don't know what a gun is, what type of gun they are looking at is, or even what "arms" means. I believe that since it is in the constitution, we should be armed equal to the government, and not just with the guns, but also non conventional arms.
We have a right, but rights are much like the news, if you don't keep up with the times, you will get into some serious messes.
Matt D.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
1. Now, if you look at that most people instantly think of the armed forces. I don't see how you could though. The first comma is a separation between two clauses, so that kind of kills that whole theory.
2. Some say it only applies to muskets and the sort, because it was written in the 1790's. They always say since they could not foresee what arms we have now, they could not have made a decision on what arms could be infringed upon. Not so. Remember who had been using a few types of highly advanced (For that time) musket during the war lest than two decades earlier. So, they could have easily said that we may only use wheel lock or match lock rifles.
Or maybe that we couldn't have a mortar, or field guns. Or maybe another almost obsolete weapon system, much like single shots or lever actions are now. But they didn't. And that, is why we must may never be truly safe. Some refuse to use there minds (that God gave them for this sort of thing!) to figure out the truth.
Between those people and the masses of people who just go with the flow and believe that when Barrack Hussein Obama tells them it was a fully automatic AR 15 used at Newtown, they believe him. When those of us who are voices of reason tell them he didn't even use his AR 15, (According to the police report) and that he used two handguns, they just have a blank stare.
Most don't know what a gun is, what type of gun they are looking at is, or even what "arms" means. I believe that since it is in the constitution, we should be armed equal to the government, and not just with the guns, but also non conventional arms.
We have a right, but rights are much like the news, if you don't keep up with the times, you will get into some serious messes.
Matt D.